I've definitely noticed family being far less likely to be scammed or click fake ads with ad blocker on.

Given the prevalence in the real world of scams and fake ads - is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens.

Any time I hear of a new scam, I tell people about the method so they can look out for it. In the heat of the moment the "IRS tax problem call" or "its me your child I have been in an accident can you send me some money" can be convincing.

It's a bit like vaccination, educating people people about the various scams out there so they are prepared in advance.

Exactly, our system for ads and scams works in the same way as the immune system.

Personally I think I have one of those hyperactive immune systems that starts to eat its host alive, having told my actual bank to f off and stop ringing me to try scam me when a payment really didnt go through.

> is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens.

Probably, but there's so much variance in human behavior and circumstances that your vulnerability to scams never drops to 0. A call telling you your child is in the hospital and you need to pay them because their check has bounced sounds a lot more convincing during times when you know your child is actually in the hospital.

And the way these scams are done is en-mass, creating a (high) probability that they hit sommeone already primed to fall for it.

A not so recent example ... https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hi-mum-scam-tricks-parents...

My general advice is "If you didn't initiate the conversation with the party with the intent to take an action or exchange money and they want you to do those things then don't take action or exchange money until you reach back to that party via their official lines of communication or otherwise verify the situation makes sense". In the end it's not the method you use to scam someone that matters it's that you trick them into trusting you really represent something/someone you do not. This also helps with not-exactly-a-scam scams like special offers you didn't seek out but are being sold to you because it gives more time to think if it's really a good deal or think what the downsides would be.

You can give 1,000 examples of how fake urgency is created to make you skip that verification step but past the first one or two to explain the general concept of needing to verify it doesn't matter it just means you'll need 1,001 examples to give the next day.

This isn't bulletproof either but I haven't found anything generally applicable that solves the problem better without making more of a problem than it prevents on average.

The times that one is most exposed is when the circumstances all line up - through luck and the law of large numbers ... you submitted your tax return 2 weeks ago, you did some things you are sure are right on the line, you get the scam tax man phone call - you are primed then to fall for it.

The trust and fake urgency really is the method of the scam (or ad!) - always verify!

> Given the prevalence in the real world of scams and fake ads - is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens.

Strong disagree. Once you've avoided ads for a while, the ads that do slip through seem bizarre and flagrantly manipulative. Ads work best on people who are accustomed to ads, to whom ads are normalized. Once you denormalize ads, they become less effective because their manipulative nature comes across plain as day.

One of the many reasons I hate Microsoft with a burning passion is that they got my grandma tech support scammed.

I had Firefox with ublock origin configured as the default browser and (thought I had) purged IE/Edge. She was fine with this setup for years.

One day, an update swapped the default browser, she saw a deceptive ad, and it went predictably from there.

What would the end result be if a significant percentage of people started using ad blockers? I mean like 50-60%,enough to make the current "free" web non viable to run. Litigation against the end users? What happens if I'm legally required to view an ad that gives me malware?

The last number I saw was 30% which seems pretty significant already. This is not some fringe group of technically competent developers. Adblockers are accessible to anyone who can install a browser extension on desktop, or install an app (content blocker) from the App Store on iOS, where Apple has features built into the OS specifically for enabling ad blocking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach...

The more likely scenario is that browsers effectively ban or restrict ad blocker extensions. Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS, and Google does not allow extensions on Chrome mobile, and we already know mobile accounts for a significant portion of web traffic.

> Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS

My iOS Wipr extension begs to differ.

This is one of those things that won't die like iOS can't copy&paste. Yes, both things were true for a painfully long time. They are no longer true now, so continuing to saying use these as examples is just moronic at this time.

The last time I looked at Wipr it still wouldn't let me block an individual element or set up my own filter. And what I'm calling a browser extension must be quite different from Apple's recent definition.

> Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS

It's going to be interesting to see how Apple deals with this now that the EU is forcing them to allow users to install apps from alternate sources.

you make this comment like the comment you are replying to is true. it's not, and just makes your comment even more ridiculous

I currently have 17 extensions installed on my iPhone for Safari. There’s some overlap, but not total overlap with the 7 content (read: ad) blockers I have installed too.

The nature of advertising will become more "native" and will make it harder to separate ads from the content. We are already on our way.

Real businesses will be mostly unaffected. People will still need to buy airline tickets, insurance, widgets, etc online.

If facebook collapses nothing of value will have been lost. If google isn't able to stay afloat without ads despite billions in R&D funding then they were never meant to be. Life would go on.

That, and/or first-party hosted ad delivery.

There will be more pressure to develop an interoperable, easy to use micropayment system so that content worth paying for can survive. Trash whose only purpose is to get you to watch ads and that nobody would otherwise pay even a cent for will go away but that won't be missed.

Here’s an idea: All the websites start using Widevine and FairPlay to make blocking ads a DMCA Violation. When that happens the absurdity of the DMCA might finally be forced to end.

I always turn off DRM. If the content is only available via DRM, I won't watch it. End of story.

My ISP also offers TV for "free". I used to watch it, but recently they switched to a DRM player and I won't use it anymore. I told them about this, but they don't care. My attention is better spent somewhere else.

Why does adding DRM change something's status under DMCA? Either way, I don't even compile Widevine into my browser so I guess I'd just be locked out of those sites.

DMCA Section 1201 criminalizes breaking any “technological protection measures” of any kind, unless there is an exception for it on a list decided by a librarian that changes every 3 years. It’s absurd.

I guess my question is more specifically why something like Widevine falls under this, but commonly used anti-adblocking scripts (that are still regularly blocked by ad-blockers) don't. Are anti-adblockers on that exception list you refer to?

Because the DMCA says that if you try to use property you own as if you own it, and that property came with DRM, you are a criminal. Stop thinking you own things pleb, that's not for people of your class and the masters decided to put an end to that nonsense.

(the thing you want to google for a non-snarky explanation: "anti-circumvention provision")

PIHole + Privacy Badger + UBlock Origin

I've had more trouble than it's worth out of privacy badget to be fair. I find just using a vpn with ip blocking of ads/malware and ublock origin is quite sufficient

I always tell people the best antimalware is a good adblocker. It's a requirement I make for company machines as well (not really enforced but I wish I could).

Another reason why browsers other than Safari should allow extensions on iOS.

Using Firefox does not allow me to use the same protection as Safari itself. Ridiculous.

In my experience even the add-ons I can find for Safari on iOS rarely do what they say they will do. Nothing ever works as well as ublock origin on a desktop browser and it so frustrating. Having mobile firefox + ublock is one of the few things I still miss about android.

Same. I tried to switch to iOS about a year ago, but I ended up returning the device after spending over $50 on highly-rated ad/script blockers for Safari, and finding that none of them really worked.

Back on Android, I only see ads when I visit somewhere with live TV. It's a shame, because Apple makes some great pieces of hardware, but I won't be back until they loosen up on controlling the software that I'm able to run on my devices.

Showing yet again they are mis-named. They are not Ad Blockers, they are a security device called an HTML Firewall.

Let's add that Google web search show ads on top that (at the moment, for me) are almost undistinguishable from real results (a 'sponsored' label is shown, but nothing else). Dark pattern everywhere. All ads business is a wanna be scam.